Prev: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 295)
Next: E = m (c - Hd)^2
From: Michael Helland on 29 Apr 2010 19:10
On Apr 29, 3:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:70ff1ba4-2fe9-43f4-af90-e97cf1273266(a)u30g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 2:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
>
> > "Michael Helland" <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:813896cc-bedc-4098-a4b4-c2dfd07bc34d(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 26, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 4:26 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 26, 3:59 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In fact there are two. They are the universal rates that GR and
> > > > > > > SR
> > > > > > > slowdown from. The math is inverse Gamma slow for the Two Times
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > express themselves together as one flow over energy.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Time Gravity
>
> > > > > > xxein: The truth about Burt. Idiot.
>
> > > > > Stephen Hawking uses the concept of two times.
>
> > > > So does Einstein. So does Newton. So did the Greeks.
>
> > > > The question is organizing them into an information system. That's too
> > > > big of a job for equations to do properly.
>
> > > > So when you're dealing with equations, its best to simply ignore
> > > > absolute time altogether.
>
> > > > You can prove the world wrong of course, but I sincerely suggest
> > > > computation rather than equations for that line of thinking.
>
> > > For truth's sake Einstein never saw that time was more than one
> > > slowdown but his theories vouch for it.
>
> > "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but
> > observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
>
> > "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?"
> > [Heisenberg] asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the
> > fact that it
> > is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute
> > time
> > cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving
> > reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the
> > determination of time."
>
> > "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but
> > it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more
> > diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep
> > in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite
> > wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone.
>
> > > How do you back up your claim about Newton?
>
> > From the principia:
> > 2. Absolute time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably
> > without regard to anything external, and by another name is called
> > duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent,
> > and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether
> > accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion
>
> > 3. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything
> > external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some
> > movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses
> > determine by its position to bodies;
>
> > > Where are the Greeks two times? One with the Sun the other with the
> > > dial?
>
> > Plato's cave, there was relative time and space inside the cave, and
> > absolute time and space outside the cave.
> > ===========================================
> > You are confusing "relative and absolute" with "subjective and objective".
>
> Uh... no.
>
> Objective time is relative.
> =========================================
>
> Uh... No! Uh... objective time is not uh... measurable.
> Uh... you are confusing  "uh... relative and  uh... absolute time" with "
> uh... subjective and uh... objective time".
>
> > This is Newton's time:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time
>
> > Both apparent time and mathematical time are measurable, the sundial
> > does not agree with the clock, but both are objective. Sleeping in a cave
> > and waking up hungry so that it is "time" to eat is subjective, even if it
> > is
> > midnight outside the cave and still 8 hours from breakfast. The time
> > outside the cave in Plato's day was relative time (no clocks) and the
> > time inside the cave was subjective time.
>
> Uh, no. The time of one of the prisoner's was subjective. The time of
> all the prisoners was objective.
> ================================================
> Uh, no. The uh, time of all the uh, prisoners is uh, subjective.
>
> Both were relative to the prisoners.
> ================================================
>
> Uh, no. The uh, time of all the uh, prisoners is uh, subjective.
>
> Absolute time is outside the cave.
> ================================================
> Uh, no. Uh, relative time is uh, measured by the uh, position of the uh,
> sun.
> Uh, absolute time is uh, measured by the uh, position of the uh, stars (or a
> clock,
> but Plato had no clock).
> Uh, there are 365 solar days in a uh, year and 366 sidereal days in a year.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
>
> Uh, both Sun and uh, stars are uh, outside the uh, cave.
>
> The same is true for space and matter.
> ================================================
> Uh, not uh, relevant.


So you think

> Uh, no. The uh, time of all the uh, prisoners is uh, subjective.
> Uh... No! Uh... objective time is not uh... measurable.

But objective and measurable are nearly synonymous.

And how could something common between all the prisoners be
subjective?

You're off your rocker.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 295)
Next: E = m (c - Hd)^2